In general the BBC prioritises simple writing, a reasonably low reading level, and common words to make it as accessible as possible. They don't pay much attention to ideas of artistic writing and they aren't looking to use a different adverb or adjective every time for the whimsical sake of it. It's a public news service, not a mid-atlantic magazine.

The best news choice I made, as an American, was to get my primary news through foreign outlets.

Because generally, they don't really care enough to implement systemic bias about another country.

That's quite a broad brush to paint with. There's plenty of bias in media around the world, and more than a few examples are even more systematic than what we see in the US.

Bias is unavoidable but if you read a variety of reputable news sources from around the world you will at least know when they disagree.

Then, if you care enough you can investigate the issue yourself and come to your own conclusions. In not, then at least you know that it's controversial.

Systemic bias, aka a cultural view? You don't quite get fox news levels of opinion on your news feed, but every outlet has it's roots in a particular worldview.

If you wanted simple writing you would omit "very," not replace it.

Newspapers tend to write for a very low reading level. Flourish is nice for readers of a long novel (for whom the words are as important as the story itself), but the goal here is for as many people to understand the content as possible. That includes people that don't natively speak English, children, etc.

> Newspapers tend to write for a very low reading level.

I see what you did there.

I didn't do that on purpose. I have no doubt that the author of the comment I replied to is capable of reading things at a higher level than this article.

I always assumed there's a chosen public facing secret plane with some PR management to represent the secret program in general and there's numerous other behind the scenes secret crafts without the PR.

I also assumed many of the silly rumors of antigravity or whatever planes are intentionally manufactured as part of the PR so if some information of an actual plane leaks it'll be buried with the noise.

This way, the formal channels could say "oh nonsense, that's just silly rumours, The Official Secret Plane is this one over here".

It also puts outsiders at a true zero knowledge position since there's no indication as to what is and is not nonsense.

Then you could have say, a top scientist defecting, taking all the secret plane information with them, write detailed books and lectures exposing all of it and people would just be like "oh, look at that silly conspiracy kook over there! how goofy"

Pretend it's already happened and there's scientifically sound diagrams, correct math, etc... Nobody would be able to find it among the garbage.

At least that's how I'd structure it.

This is how disinformation could work. Also, disinformation existing does not prove that UFOs/antigravity craft are just silly rumours.

Well search Google for "military secret plane" and you'll see this strategy exactly as described.

You'll get X-37 for half a page and then a bunch of click baity speculation

Wrong. Actually I got this:

https://imgur.com/a/BLWsNYd

I guess you're partly right tho. Less on the X37-B, but there are a few "Area 51" and "Tonopah" articles. Certainly active disinfo and infiltration of the UFO/Truther/free energy movement was a thing. Used exactly as you describe, to drive people off the scent of actual tech, and discredit them.

For your viewing pleasure I've included a few links to UFO videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=0CYFEZFNl6E...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnUpJw5sahg&milpo=town9

https://youtu.be/JAEi9rltoqU?t=11

https://www.youtube.com/user/myparanormalufostory/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKC_Iaw9EN4&feature=youtu.be...

https://www.youtube.com/user/MrAntonioUrzi/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9UbGpJQ054 [particularly interesting Cali find. looks like a jet but makes NO sound and no woosh/boom and no shock diamonds]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFN7KofHpcY&t=1s [the Beaver Utah video]

But I guess you could be right. Considering if this is a military disinfo op. How hard would it be to fake these videos? Probably very easy.

It gets difficult tho when you have real people (like Antonio Urzi, and Slattery, and Sam Chortek and Jimmy Chappie) coming forward with video and saying we saw this and filmed it. The reason is, because if those guys are part of a counterintelligence campaign, they've just publicly revealed themselves, so it should be easy for a group to put some surveillance on them and work out are they really disinfo agents, who are they meeting and communicating with, etc.

I agree that anon videos could be faked, but I'm not sure how I'd run a disinfo campaign that includes public figures, some of whom keep producing videos, and do so in front of large groups of people. Any ideas?

BTW, I love MacArthur Park. Beautiful area of LA.

> the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret!

Dr. Strangelove